Louisville Coffin Company v. Warren, &C.
| Decision Date | 26 March 1880 |
| Citation | 78 Ky. 400 |
| Parties | Louisville Coffin Company v. Warren, &c. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
This action was instituted by L. L. Warren and others in the Louisville chancery court against the Louisville Coffin Company, alleging, in substance, that the issue of smoke, soot, and cinders from the smoke-stack of the defendant's factory is a nuisance to the plaintiffs, who live in the vicinity of the factory and own the property on which they reside. They sought and obtained an injunction in the action, and from that judgment this appeal was taken.
The ground on which the appellant's factory stands is in the interior of the square bounded by Walnut, Third, Chestnut, and Fourth streets. Warren's residence is on the corner of Fourth and Walnut; Pindell's residence is between Third and Fourth, on Walnut. The latter is the owner, also, of two houses on Third street. Warren and Pindell are the appellees here, and were the plaintiffs below.
Some four or five years prior to the institution of the action the appellant became the purchaser of a lease covering a part of the ground within the square already described, and have erected upon it valuable improvements in the way of buildings, in which has been placed costly machinery for the execution of the work in which it is engaged.
The factory is a substantial brick building, three stories high, and the cost of its construction, including the machinery, is not less than fifteen thousand dollars. The smoke-stack of which the complaint is made was erected in the year 1870, and has been in use since that date, is fifty-five feet in height, and overlooks the buildings surrounding it. It is alleged in the petition "that the machinery of this factory is propelled by steam, and that a column of smoke, soot, and burning embers pours almost constantly from this smoke-stack, and frequently the smoke, soot, and cinders are carried by the wind over the premises of the plaintiffs, enveloping their windows and doors, and rendering the atmosphere unwholesome for respiration; that their buildings are in danger from the burning embers, and their tenant-houses less valuable for rental, &c. that the factory is located in the midst of a square almost entirely occupied by buildings for residences and light fancy stores; that some of the buildings have taken fire from the embers emanating from the smoke-stack, and the rates of insurance have been greatly increased." These allegations are denied by the answer, and by way of defense, it is also alleged that a steam planing mill was continuously operated on this ground for three years prior to the purchase made by the appellant, and that appellant used the same steam power and smoke-stack in the mill and factory that had been used on the leasehold during the last seven years past, and the volume of smoke, soot, &c., was no greater than it had been during the entire period. They allege the use of every precaution to prevent an injury to appellees' property, and deny any other injury than the annoyance that such buildings and machinery must necessarily cause; that their property cannot be removed without destroying its value, nor their business conducted without the aid of steam power.
The depositions of many witnesses have been taken in the case, and much conflicting testimony is presented in the record as to the effect the operating of appellant's factory has on the adjacent property, as well as the extent of the injury and annoyance resulting to those who occupy residences on this square. The discomfort produced by smoke, soot, &c., from the running of large factories in cities has not, perhaps, been exaggerated by those who have testified; and with reference to the particular case, when looking alone to the testimony offered by the appellees, it can scarcely be maintained that the only injury sustained is the annoyance usually incident to such buildings. This testimony, however, when considered in connection with that offered by the appellant,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C. Rice Packing Co. v. Ballinger
...set out in the Seifried case and will not be repeated here. In that case the court analyzes and distinguishes the case of Louisville Coffin Co. v. Warren, 78 Ky. 400, the opinion in which was also written by Judge Pryor, relied on by appellant in the Seifried case and by appellant in the ca......
-
C. Rice Packing Co. v. Ballinger
...set out in the Seifried case and will not be repeated here. In that case the court analyzes and distinguishes the case of Louisville Coffin Co. v. Warren, 78 Ky. 400, the opinion in which was also written by Judge Pryor, relied on by appellant in the Seifried case and by appellant in the ca......
-
Hughes v. General Electric Light & Power Co.
... ... Light & Power Company to recover damages for injury to real ... estate. Judgment for defendant, ... the opinion of this court in the case of Coffin Co. v ... Warren, 78 Ky. 400, and comment thereon, over the ... protest ... ...